Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Scout26 on February 10, 2009, 10:46:01 PM
-
It's scary that some of my fellow Americans think that the president can grant wishes and solve all their problems. (That they are too lazy to solve themselves.....)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-88Il-4nby0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01MNZBTt4K4
Have we really sunk this far ??
-
Reminds me of a game show, something like "The Price is Right."
Was that town hall meeting held at a mental facility? A guy who's been working at McDonalds for 4 1/2 years and can't get a better job doesn't have all his dogs barking.
-
Reminds me of a game show, something like "The Price is Right."
Was that town hall meeting held at a mental facility? A guy who's been working at McDonalds for 4 1/2 years and can't get a better job doesn't have all his dogs barking.
He's also a freshman in college... showing at least "some" initiative. Supposedly.
4 1/2 years at the same job, any job? Shows loyalty.
Initiative, loyalty, enough courage and activism to attend a Town Hall meeting and direct some sort of cogent question at the POTUS...
Hell, I'd hire him to do dang near anything at $10-$12 an hour and see if he can do it. Sounds like potentially a good employee.
Except for the Benediction to the Benevolent One that he started his question with... :rolleyes:
-
...direct some sort of cogent question...
Was it a cogent question? I heard this earlier today on Rush's show, and I couldn't make heads or tails of what the guy was saying. How he got into college is beyond me, as his grammar skills are at about a second grade level.
Also, how do you reconcile 4 1/2 years working at McDonald's with "initiative?"
This wasn't a policy discussion, it was another campaign appearance designed to pander to voters. It seems that all Obama knows how to do is campaign. Oh, wait, that's right. Campaigning is his "executive experience."
-
This wasn't a policy discussion, it was another campaign appearance designed to pander to voters. It seems that all Obama knows how to do is campaign. Oh, wait, that's right. Campaigning is his "executive experience."
^Truth
BClinton was the same except at least he had his underlings doing polls to test his ideas. Obama just wants to implement all the ideas he has read about in books that "worked" in books.
-
If you have a political party devoted to the theory that government exists to give you things in order to mitigate pain and suffering, then I do not think this is shocking (depressing, yes, but shocking, no).
This nation now has tens of millions of people who do nothing but sit around and wait for someone to give them things. These videos are logical result of the past 60 years or so of Democrat philosophy.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium1.uploadit.org%2FdocZox%2F%2Fmessiah.gif&hash=e481d8eee2ec55ac6d9cbf4ecf63f322b7e91ae8)(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium1.uploadit.org%2FdocZox%2F%2Fmessiah.gif&hash=e481d8eee2ec55ac6d9cbf4ecf63f322b7e91ae8)(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium1.uploadit.org%2FdocZox%2F%2Fmessiah.gif&hash=e481d8eee2ec55ac6d9cbf4ecf63f322b7e91ae8)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium1.uploadit.org%2FdocZox%2F%2Fmessiah.gif&hash=e481d8eee2ec55ac6d9cbf4ecf63f322b7e91ae8)(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium1.uploadit.org%2FdocZox%2F%2Fmessiah.gif&hash=e481d8eee2ec55ac6d9cbf4ecf63f322b7e91ae8)(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium1.uploadit.org%2FdocZox%2F%2Fmessiah.gif&hash=e481d8eee2ec55ac6d9cbf4ecf63f322b7e91ae8)
-
That kid at McDonald's thinks that the government it going to stimulate his career growth? LMAO. He needs to work hard, keep his nose clean, be willing to do what others aren't, be honest, serve his customers and fellow team members and do all the other attributes that lead to promotion. What a freaking retard. He was acting like he took time off during a crack binge to attend this clown hall meeting.
-
I don't have anything bad to say about the first one.
Personally, if it were me, and me and my family were living out of a car I would try to pull a stunt like this on national TV to get my face and name out there. I am sure even if Barack's people didn't do anything, some other good-doer has.
The I love you Barack lady is typical for this type of Oprah style show business. That is why I can't stand when anyone anywhere watches "O". Mindless drones in love with the idea of people getting help (but they don't give help, the like to watch others give the help, because 'they can afford it').
Kids that worked 4 1/2 years at McDonalds, attend local community colleges with an undeclared major (as if it might be too much of a commitment to declare a joke major like communications) and act like bafoons on national TV are a dime a dozen. If that kid was capable of doing anything more than McDonalds in the 3 1/2 years previous to last March, he would have.
-
Also, how do you reconcile 4 1/2 years working at McDonald's with "initiative?"
He's been working at one place for 4 1/2 years and that shows loyalty and either respect or trustworthiness. If he were a crappy employee (always late, stole, disrespectful to customers, etc) then he would have been fired in that time.
It's not much for resume padding for skills... but it at least gives him a leg up on all the other HS grads and dropouts that job-skip every 6 months because they get in fights with coworkers or their boss, sleep with coworkers and cause drama, or get in fights with customers.
It also shows that he only had a HS degree and entered the workforce, then discovered that he wanted more out of life after a couple years of that. He enrolled in school again. Very few people are able to do that, and I respect that. He's through his first semester, working on his second. I'd consider that a display of initiative.
He's a lib, yeah, and we all dislike libs on this forum... but he's young enough and from the little we can deduce about him, he can be salvaged to think for himself. If I were hiring for something suitable to his skills, I'd offer him a job.
I ROFL'ed at "I love you Barack" lady. What a 'tard.
-
Who cares about the lady that loves Barack? Like there weren't plenty of people who felt the same way about W or Clinton or Fred Thompson? Of course there were.
That guy workin' at McDonalds, though, what's his deal? You're working, you're going to school. So am I. Keep working and going to school, then. Get your degree. Get a better job. What are you bothering the President for? You want him to tutor you, or something?
-
Also, how do you reconcile 4 1/2 years working at McDonald's with "initiative?"
If someone is working at McDonalds for that long and isn't the store manager, they certainly don't have initiative. Someone who worked there, then invested in their own franchise and was good at it because of the firsthand experience? That is initiative. I guess I have a different understanding of the word.
-
I would have to know what he does at the McDonald's before I said if he was bad or good. If he is still running the fry bin, he probably isn't the person you want.
-
Well, he just got a 1-day gig as color commentator for a minor league baseball team.
Pay: $25.
But, it gives him something to put on his resume and he wants to get into communications... radio, he says. Maybe this will help.
Seems asking questions to Obama pays of career-wise. I'm sure Joe the Plumber has lots of plumbing gigs lined up right now between his speaking engagements.
-
Yeah, maybe I should try mumbling and stuttering through some questions to Obama and advance my career.
The story about the broadcast gig is here. (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090211&content_id=3817018&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)
-
Barack's latest miracle. The has allowed the inarticulate to speak. =D
-
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/02/62687523/1
Indeed, it appears I was correct.
"I have never felt this good except maybe when I got my PlayStation 3 for Christmas,"
He puts more emphasis on upgrading his video game console than his career.
-
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/02/62687523/1
Indeed, it appears I was correct.
"I have never felt this good except maybe when I got my PlayStation 3 for Christmas,"
He puts more emphasis on upgrading his video game console than his career.
You don't need a career if you expect to be given free money so you can sit and play video games.
-
You don't need a career if you expect to be given free money so you can sit and play video games.
Oddly enough, in the (super time intensive) World of Warcraft, all the best non-professional raiding guilds are European. They themselves attribute this to the fact that they have more free time to play video games than the average American.
-
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/02/62687523/1
Indeed, it appears I was correct.
"I have never felt this good except maybe when I got my PlayStation 3 for Christmas,"
He puts more emphasis on upgrading his video game console than his career.
Yeah, I saw that in the article too, and smirked at it but didn't fully process it. I yield. He's a schmuck-tard. If that's the best you can come up with for an interview... that puts you on the same bus as Michelle "I've never been proud of my country until it did something that only benefitted me" Obama.
-
Sweet merciful crap. Work hard, and climb the ladder. If you don't like your job, get another one. It's not the government's job to help you out at work. Son of a bitch.
-
He's been working at one place for 4 1/2 years and that shows loyalty and either respect or trustworthiness. If he were a crappy employee (always late, stole, disrespectful to customers, etc) then he would have been fired in that time.
Bullshit.
I worked at a McDonald's for two years when I was in high school. I saw some of the worst employees not only stick around, but some were advanced to management positions. :O
These were people who were unhygienic, lazy, rude and lacking more than a little intelligence; they just didn't do it in a way that attracted the attention of their employers.
-
It's not the government's job to help you out at work.
It is now, comrade.
-
It is now, comrade.
I welcome the chance to help produce high quality tractors, and to make factory number 8 the best in all the Motherland!
Of course since I'm blue-collar already I'll prolly get stuck with a desk job.....
-
I just saw more of the Florida meeting with people.
They were looking at him like a faith healer, they wanted him to cure their problems, some had tears in their eyes and they were trying to touch him.
I am horrified.
-
They were looking at him like a faith healer, they wanted him to cure their problems, some had tears in their eyes and they were trying to touch him.
Imagine if Obama was just a charlatan using his oratorical talents to control people.
-
It's scary that some of my fellow Americans think that the president can grant wishes and solve all their problems.
You can build a fire and keep a man warm for a while, but can set the man on fire and keep him warm the rest of his life.
-
Was that town hall meeting held at a mental facility? A guy who's been working at McDonalds for 4 1/2 years and can't get a better job doesn't have all his dogs barking.
Yeah, even at mcdonalds you can make decent cash if you have an average IQ and you work hard. A friend of mine still works for mcdonalds (we worked there together in highschool).. by 4 and 1/2 years he was a 1st assistant manager, making about 34k a year... not bad at 22 years old.. now he is a store manager and makes in the mid 40's. You can be reasonably successful, even if you "only work at mcdonalds".
-
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/02/62687523/1
Indeed, it appears I was correct.
"I have never felt this good except maybe when I got my PlayStation 3 for Christmas,"
He puts more emphasis on upgrading his video game console than his career.
Worse, the best feeling he's ever had in his life are due to other people giving him stuff.
-
He works at McDonalds. What can possibly happen there that can be more exciting than a Playstation 3? =D =D
-
Barack's latest miracle. The has allowed the inarticulate to speak. =D
More like "The One" has given the stupid a public voice..... ;/
-
.
-
Next, 2 hours lines of people waiting for toilet paper.
I prayed to the Holy Obama, and was blessed with two-ply! :angel:
-
>You can be reasonably successful, even if you "only work at mcdonalds"<
Heh... my niece put herself through college, and used her degrees to go to work for Mc Donalds. Last I checked, she has a couple houses in IL, a VERY nice car, and was looking at buying her own small plane...
Of course, when i say "work for Mc Donalds", she was in charge of the entire far east...
-
He's also a freshman in college... showing at least "some" initiative.
4-1/2 year McDonalds employees with initiative are in grad school.
4 1/2 years at the same job, any job? Shows loyalty.
No, it shows that he's well aware nobody else will hire him, or he's not willing to do whatever else he might be hired for.
Barring a schedule change or a particularly grouchy day, I might still be at my current job in 2 more years, which will make it 4-1/2, yet I'd gladly switch to the primary competitor for the area (or darn near anything else with minimal manual labor) in a heartbeat if they offered me a comparable schedule and pay. (On second thought, nevermind pay - in a couple more months it will be illegal to pay me less.)
-
Imagine if Obama was is just a charlatan using his oratorical talents to control people.
FTFY.
-
4-1/2 year McDonalds employees with initiative are in grad school.
He was hired 1 month shy of his 15th birthday. He ain't a rocket scientist by any stretch, but at least he's in school.
No, it shows that he's well aware nobody else will hire him, or he's not willing to do whatever else he might be hired for.
Barring a schedule change or a particularly grouchy day, I might still be at my current job in 2 more years, which will make it 4-1/2, yet I'd gladly switch to the primary competitor for the area (or darn near anything else with minimal manual labor) in a heartbeat if they offered me a comparable schedule and pay. (On second thought, nevermind pay - in a couple more months it will be illegal to pay me less.)
Now that he's a celebu-tard and the liberal version of Joe the Plumber, he's getting internship offers, job offers, college tuition offers, radio gigs. I just heard him on 550 KFYI being interviewed by Bruce Jacobs this morning. Kid annoys me, but this attack on this kid annoys me more. It's just making him a "personality" for one thing. And for another... he's a freaking kid! Okay, not a "kid," but a dumb teenager @ 18 or 19 years old.
ETA: This kid is serving as a media and talk radio distraction from the crisis that is the stimulus bill. Leave this idiot alone and focus on something important. Otherwise you'll see him in Congress in 5 years as a junior Obama, cult of personality.
-
typical for this type of Oprah style show business
You know, I couldn't quite figure out what it was about the presidents speaking style that bothered me, but that sums it up very well. He's a great speaker and looks good on TV. It was either his current job or talk show host, so it's no wonder people confuse the two.
-
Give a man a fish, and he will be fed for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will be fed for life... I fear many will be going hungry "tomorrow."
Perhaps we shouldn't be setting the precedent that if you can get chosen to ask a question to the president you will win something.
-
Give a man a fish, and he will be fed for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you'll probably ruin a marriage.
Welcome to the "gimme" generation, ask not what your country can do for you , ask what your country can give you. (After takinig it away from someone that actually produces things).
Looters and parasites.
Who is John Galt?
-
Uh-huh. Remember the Oprah-worthy story from the press conference, where this lady was weeping at Obama to do something about the homeless?
Thursday morning, Chene Thompson handed Henrietta Hughes the keys to her home in Hendry County. Thompson is the wife of State Representative Nick Thompson (R-District 73). Hughes and her son will live at the home rent free.
However, a local organization is coming forward saying Hughes isn't being honest about how much help she's had in the past.
The director of We Care Outreach Ministry, Tanya Johnson, says just last month she offered Henrietta Hughes permanent housing and a place to stay free for three months, but Hughes refused.
"We would have allowed her to stay for the first 90 days, no income. You know free," said Tanya Johnson.
We Care Outreach Ministry is a faith based organization in Fort Myers.
Johnson says she also gave Henrietta and her son Corey, money, food and offered Corey job training courses, but it was refused.
"We have extended a lot of her services to her," Johnson said.
But Henrietta Hughes says these services weren't free and the apartment in East Fort Myers came with a price tag.
http://www.winknews.com/news/local/39518252.html (http://www.winknews.com/news/local/39518252.html)
-
Give a man a fish, and he will be fed for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you'll probably ruin a marriage.
Welcome to the "gimme" generation, ask not what your country can do for you , ask what your country can give you. (After takinig it away from someone that actually produces things).
Looters and parasites.
Who is John Galt?
I figure even he couldn't take it, and thus shot himself after months of being depressed about the state of the world and the nation...
-
ETA: This kid is serving as a media and talk radio distraction from the crisis that is the stimulus bill.
It's a little late now; you should have been pointing out such things while everybody was gnawing on the gay marriage red herring and letting the Democrats gain power in the first place.
-
It's a little late now; you should have been pointing out such things while everybody was gnawing on the gay marriage red herring and letting the Democrats gain power in the first place.
You are reminding me of Obama. Remember when he said that gun rights were a distraction from real issues? Don't tell me what to vote on.
-
MTP: go vote on 9mm being better than .45... :laugh:
To a certain extent, the gay marriage thing WAS a distraction: there were much more important things to be worrying about at the time. However, knowing what the important issues are is ususlly only clear in hindsight...
-
To a certain extent, the gay marriage thing WAS a distraction:
Unfortunately, the Dem's are going to keep distracting us with it, and the sensible people will have to keep putting it down.
-
Unfortunately, the Dem's are going to keep distracting us with it, and the sensible people will have to keep putting it down.
Or just go on ignoring it. What, are you concerned that if it's legal, you will no longer be able to resist the temptation to marry a man?
-
Actually, I agree with MTP. Gay marriage is important. =)
-
Or just go on ignoring it. What, are you concerned that if it's legal, you will no longer be able to resist the temptation to marry a man?
Of course not. The wife wouldn't let me marry a man.
But to answer your question, I don't want to see the law expand into another area where it's not needed. Regulating, or recognizing, homosexual relationships serves no purpose. Mainly, though, I'm opposed to the irrationality of the concept. Marriages are heterosexual. That should be obvious to everyone, regardless of orientation.
Why do I feel like I've had this conversation before? =)
-
Marriages are heterosexual. A social construct.
Fixed it for you.
Any student of history at the first year will tell you that marriage and family are social constructs. They mutate with age according to the requirements of society and economics.
-
I am a student of history. In my third year. Where do you get this noise?
Marriage is an essentially heterosexual social construct. Any human adult who's been paying attention should be able to figure that one out. A thing can only mutate so far, until it becomes something else. Obviously, once marriage mutates to the point that it no longer contains at least one member of each sex, it loses it's qualification as a marriage.
You know it's almost like the argument that the Second Amendment applies to machine guns, not just flintlock muskets. Except that you're saying the second amendment should be applied to damp sponges. After all, anything can be used as a weapon, and society's opinion of what is or is not a weapon can change over time. :rolleyes:
-
So you're arguing that polygamy does qualify as marriage?
-
marriage and family are social constructs. They mutate with age according to the requirements of society and economics.
This social construct business is a dead end for you, I'm afraid.
Economically, there is absolutely zero pressure to change the status quo. How does our current economy militate for the legal regulation of homosexual relationships? How is that important to our well-being, as a society?
And if the pressure is social, that is merely the arbitrary judgment of the minority of Americans that actually support the idea. The true "construct" is the recently fabricated notion that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, and therefore a homosexual relationship can be a marriage. Surely, we ought to see some good reason to believe this, before we actually write it into our laws.
-
So you're arguing that polygamy does qualify as marriage?
You're changing the subject. Of course polygamy is marriage, so long as there's at least one member of each sex in there. How does this relate? Don't waste our time answering; it doesn't.
-
Under your argument, making polygamy legal would be okay, as it doesn't shift the social definition of marriage, but not a marriage of two gay people.
In fact, in your rationale, any kind of bizarre arrangement with N+1 males and females would be okay, it is only FF and MM marriages that are not.
This seems strange.
-
Let's not waste time arguing semantics. Yes, marriage is between (or among, whatever) a man and a woman--there's no arguing that.
But, how does it affect you and me if two men want to call each other HWMBO? What could we possibly have to lose by that? Why should I care if a word is used incorrectly or, over time, takes on a new meaning? You have another thread going on about a word that has opposite meanings--words change.
Personally, I'd much rather the government just get out of the marriage business entirely. If Jack and Jim or Jane and Janice can find a church crazy enough to marry them, I'm all for it.
-
Personally, I'd much rather the government just get out of the marriage business entirely.
Therein lies the problem; certain privileges are extended to married couples, and there exists a means by which jointly held property is disposed of in the event of dissolution of the union, or transferred to the survivor if either dies, as well as means for handling the responsibility for dependents in either case. IMO, these are not necessarily bad things, but I don't see the reason why a particular type of relationship is necessary for the privileges. I should be able to enter into such a contract with any sane adult with no more difficulty than I entered it with my wife, regardless of that person's gender or familial relationship to me.
One example I can think of is two brothers who had moved in together after one's divorce, but both had to maintain jobs even though they didn't need the money, because neither could carry the other on his employer's insurance. Also, in many states, the ex-wife would have a significant claim to that brother's estate in the event of his death, even though the other brother contributes far more to the well-being of their joint property. If he remarries, his employer will not get to approve or disapprove of his new wife, since they offer spouse and dependent coverage, so why should they get to refuse his current life partner?
-
But, how does it affect you and me if two men want to call each other HWMBO? What could we possibly have to lose by that? Why should I care if a word is used incorrectly or, over time, takes on a new meaning? You have another thread going on about a word that has opposite meanings--words change.
It affects you if you own a business with employees. Not only do you have to extend coverage, but you have to tacitly endorse the lifestyle.
-
Therein lies the problem; certain privileges are extended to married couples, and there exists a means by which jointly held property is disposed of in the event of dissolution of the union, or transferred to the survivor if either dies, as well as means for handling the responsibility for dependents in either case. IMO, these are not necessarily bad things, but I don't see the reason why a particular type of relationship is necessary for the privileges. I should be able to enter into such a contract with any sane adult with no more difficulty than I entered it with my wife, regardless of that person's gender or familial relationship to me.
You can enter into such a contract with any adult with no difficulty whatsoever. You don't need to be married.
I suggest you talk to a good attorney.
-
You can enter into such a contract with any adult with no difficulty whatsoever. You don't need to be married.
I suggest you talk to a good attorney.
And what are the cost differences between a marriage license from the state and the services of a good attorney? Therein lies the rub.
-
And what are the cost differences between a marriage license from the state and the services of a good attorney? Therein lies the rub.
The marriage license is a one-size-fits-all contract that was drawn up by attorneys, and so costs less than a custom contract.
-
And what are the cost differences between a marriage license from the state and the services of a good attorney? Therein lies the rub.
There is no rub. There is no reason why a homosexual partnership should cost the same as a marriage. It is neither the same as, nor as common as, a marriage. And since such partnership has no effect on society at large, why should I care about it?
-
Vodka7,
If marriage is just a matter of semantics, then homosexuals have no basis on which to complain that they are missing out on anything. I would say you've chosen a silly argument, but there simply are no rational arguments for putting homosexuality and marriage on the same footing, so you've chosen as well as you could.
Under your argument, making polygamy legal would be okay, as it doesn't shift the social definition of marriage, but not a marriage of two gay people.
In fact, in your rationale, any kind of bizarre arrangement with N+1 males and females would be okay, it is only FF and MM marriages that are not.
This seems strange.
1. I'm not making an argument. I'm stating a fact. Marriage, by definition, involves a male and female union.
2. I didn't say that every marriage is OK. To say that polygamy is one form of marriage is, again, just a statement of fact. It does not therefore follow that it should be legally or morally acceptable.
3. Nothing strange about it.
-
I did not say that you consider polygamy to be generally okay (although of course I do), but that the argument you mounted against the legality of homosexual marriage can only be used against homosexual marriage, not against attempts to make other stuff legal (as of course it should be).
-
Again, there is no argument presented. There is only a statement of fact. That this fact does not militate against polygamy should not surprise you.
I suppose you just find me to be a contrast from the usual line of the religious conservative, who appeals to Christ's formula of "one man, one woman, for life." This is a religious teaching, not a fact.
-
My argument is as follows:
1. I do not believe homosexuality is morally inferior to heterosexuality or whatnot. The notion of homosexuality being morally inferior is religious in basis.
2. I would really prefer there would be no tax breaks or whatnot for any kind of marriage. However, if there are tax breaks to type A marriage, there should also be tax breaks for any other kind of marriage. The reasoning is as follows:
a) Generally, the government should not discriminate against people based on their consensual sex acts or types of personal relationships.
b) Society changes, and so does our environment. By not encouraging one type of marriage over the other, we're allowing people to experiment and try new social arrangements, as long as they're consensual. This is a good, good thing.
c) Some people think heterosexual marriage should be encouraged because it leads to more children. I'm not sure we need more children.
-
b) Society changes, and so does our environment. By not encouraging one type of marriage over the other, we're allowing people to experiment and try new social arrangements, as long as they're consensual. This is a good, good thing.
I didn't see anything I disagreed with in the rest of your argument....but this part had me head-scratchin'. =|
A "good, good thing" for whom?
And how does homosexuality encourage the evolution of the human species?
In all seriousness, I'm just trying to understand your statement.
-
What did anything I said have to do with the evolution of the human species? The evolution of the human species (or any other) is a biological process. I'm talking about a social process here.
For example, we know that as societies become more advanced, people have less children. For example, there are all sorts of social reasons for why it's a good idea not to have 20+ babies if you're a Ph.D. from California, but if you're an illiterate Liberian farmer, then having as many babies as you can humanly can is a very, very good idea. There are all sorts of reasons why ancient Jews had the age of majority kick in at 13 and why it generally kicks in at 18 now.
There are all sorts of social and economic arrangements that people have that fit for one situation but not another. One of the reasons that we have individual freedom is because it is a very good idea to have people doing whatever they're best at, obviously to a certain limit.
This is A more detailed page on this topic. (http://www.lneilsmith.org/parallax.html)
-
My argument is as follows:
1. I do not believe homosexuality is morally inferior to heterosexuality or whatnot. The notion of homosexuality being morally inferior is religious in basis.
Plenty of non-religious types disagree.
Also, lots of non-moral and non-religious arguments against it, many of them empirical and statistical.
a) Generally, the government should not discriminate against people based on their consensual sex acts or types of personal relationships.
Really? Pedophilia just fine in that book, as long as the kiddo says "yes?" Zoophilia just fine, as long as the person getting "biblical" with the livestock is the owner?
Also, some relationships have markedly different effects on the society at large.
b) Society changes, and so does our environment. By not encouraging one type of marriage over the other, we're allowing people to experiment and try new social arrangements, as long as they're consensual. This is a good, good thing.
Uh-huh. BTDT, seen the effects of Austin Power-like arrangements up close & personal and in the social science data. Encouraging that sort of damage is irresponsible, even if there is agreement not to outlaw it.
"No doubt, love, but as long as people are still having promiscuous sex with many anonymous partners without protection while at the same time experimenting with mind-expanding drugs in a consequence-free environment, I'll be sound as a pound! "
c) Some people think heterosexual marriage should be encouraged because it leads to more children. I'm not sure we need more children.
Here is a place to start weaning yourself off that misconception (yuk-yuk):
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=11589.msg205288#msg205288
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=11589.msg205473#msg205473
-
Really? Pedophilia just fine in that book, as long as the kiddo says "yes?" Zoophilia just fine, as long as the person getting "biblical" with the livestock is the owner?
The whole purpose of bans on these activities is that children are not able to give consent.
Uh-huh. BTDT, seen the effects of Austin Power-like arrangements up close & personal and in the social science data. Encouraging that sort of damage is irresponsible, even if there is agreement not to outlaw it. [q/uote]
I know some people who've done that and emerged as good, productive members of society. And not-outlawing it is not the same as encouraging it.
Here is a place to start weaning yourself off that misconception (yuk-yuk):
I don't see how showing that we have a population decline (if we do) proves that a population decline is bad. Why is a population decline bad?
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%2F1379%2F888486789_a18446443e_o.jpg&hash=20ca7e77f201f00cde4d6072816262be94ebb5c1)
-
You know, I'm half-tempted to try an experiment on here.
Go into every thread that has both Micro and Fistful, and post "gay marriage".
I'm wondering if y'all could possibly leave one alone, or if it's just required on y'all's parts to derail a thread ANY time "gay marriage" is mentioned... :rolleyes:
-
Neither one of us brought up the subject. I'm tired of being told that I shouldn't care about it. If people like yourself and Mr. Obama would quit trying to tell me what I'm supposed to care about, maybe I wouldn't go on about it so much.
I hate to compare you to Obama, but yeah, this subject gets on my nerves a bit. Maybe don't bring up the subject with me.
And since Micro has gone off on his own line of discussion that doesn't bear on what I said, I suppose I'll leave off for now.
-
>If people like yourself and Mr. Obama would quit trying to tell me what I'm supposed to care about, maybe I wouldn't go on about it so much. <
Dude... did you actually READ the post where I mentioned it? Where I made the point that you only know what the actual important issues are in hindsight?
You compare me to Obama, yet you're the one acting like a liberal: someone mentions "gay marriage" without immediately saying "it's bad", and you knee-jerk off on a tangent. I was making a point that politics is alot like war: you only know what's a feint and what's not after the fact...
And yes, Micro is just as guilty as you are, on this one. Y'all created a debate that went on for damn near a full page (so far) because neither one of you will either a)admit the other has a point, or b)back off and agree to disagree. Instead, EVERY time the words "gay" and "marriage" are used together, y'all hijack whatever thread it happens in to go on (again).
Hence my wondering if it's possible for you two to see the words, without immediately relaunching that debate.
Here's a quick clue: EVERYONE on this forum knows that you (Mr Tactical Pants) are against any form of "gay marriage" or "same sex civil union". Everyone also knows that you (MicroBalrog) are in favor of same.
Now can you PLEASE stop hijacking threads to rehash those two facts?
-
Bah, Strings has a point. *leaves*.
-
Bah, Strings has a point. *leaves*.
Waitaminute...when Strings makes a point, MB goes away? This could be entertaining =D
-
Actually sorry I participated in this level of thread drift now. Bring it back to the OP, if you want a fresh new gay marriage thread start one.
-
Waitaminute...when Strings makes a point, MB goes away? This could be a first. =D
=D
-
Ok... when did *I* become the Microbalrog kryptonite?
-
Ok... when did *I* become the Microbalrog kryptonite?
What IS the MicroBalrog kryptonite, anyway?.....is that anything like bacon-flavored matzah?..... =D
-
I'm not observant. I even eat salo. Which is probably the only food that'll annoy hippies, Orthodox Jews and radical Muslims more than bacon.
-
I'm willing to bet that I do NOT want to know what it is!
-
Strings,
That last post you addressed to me did annoy me at first, but it's OK. =)
Firstly, I did not call you a liberal. I was talking about something Obama said back in the campaign. I'll explain in a minute.
The whole scapegoat thing is supposed to be a joke. You're not actually supposed to blame me (or MB) for everything. KD5 was the one who brought up the subject for no good reason. Then I responded, without arguing the issue itself. Then you chimed in, with a comment similar to KD5's. Then I responded, again without arguing the issue itself. Then the KD5 asked me a stupid, insulting question about why I feel the way I do about the issue. I answered very succinctly, and without taking offense. Then everybody else jumped in.
So how is this my fault? ??? And are you going to stand by that totally screwy mischaracterization of my remarks? :( I didn't jerk the knee, or jack the thread, and I certainly didn't get all in a huff because "somebody mentioned gay marriage without saying it was bad."
Your high horse. Get off of it. :P :lol:
Appendix:
Remember the bitter clinger comment? In his "explanation" for that comment, Obama claimed that, because politicians were not helping people on the "important" economic issues, they "ended up voting" on unimportant things, like guns and religion. That's what I mean when I compare the two of you to Obama, who thought he could tell me what the important issues were.
KD5's comment was the usual nonsense, blaming social conservatives for the fall of the Republican party. That is not a side issue or a distraction. If people keep blaming social conservatives, the Republicans will keep running moderates like Bush and McCain. Or worse.
Yes, I am getting tired of people who ignore the overwhelming lack of popular support for homosexual marriage in state-wide referenda, and think somehow the Republican party is alienating supporters by taking a popular position. Hey, it's not like the conservatives started this whole gay marriage rumble in the first place. We're just trying to hold it off, and waiting for the crazies to drop the whole thing.
-
KD5's comment was the usual nonsense, blaming social conservatives for the fall of the Republican party. That is not a side issue or a distraction. If people keep blaming social conservatives, the Republicans will keep running moderates like Bush and McCain. Or worse.
Yes, I am getting tired of people who ignore the overwhelming lack of popular support for homosexual marriage in state-wide referenda, and think somehow the Republican party is alienating supporters by taking a popular position. Hey, it's not like the conservatives started this whole gay marriage rumble in the first place. We're just trying to hold it off, and waiting for the crazies to drop the whole thing.
Well said.
-
TBH I prefer social conservatives to people like Bush or McCain. But why are these the only alternatives?
-
Strings,
That last post you addressed to me did annoy me at first, but it's OK. =)
Firstly, I did not call you a liberal. I was talking about something Obama said back in the campaign. I'll explain in a minute.
The whole scapegoat thing is supposed to be a joke. You're not actually supposed to blame me (or MB) for everything. KD5 was the one who brought up the subject for no good reason. Then I responded, without arguing the issue itself. Then you chimed in, with a comment similar to KD5's. Then I responded, again without arguing the issue itself. Then the KD5 asked me a stupid, insulting question about why I feel the way I do about the issue. I answered very succinctly, and without taking offense. Then everybody else jumped in.
So how is this my fault? ??? And are you going to stand by that totally screwy mischaracterization of my remarks? :( I didn't jerk the knee, or jack the thread, and I certainly didn't get all in a huff because "somebody mentioned gay marriage without saying it was bad."
Your high horse. Get off of it. :P :lol:
Appendix:
Remember the bitter clinger comment? In his "explanation" for that comment, Obama claimed that, because politicians were not helping people on the "important" economic issues, they "ended up voting" on unimportant things, like guns and religion. That's what I mean when I compare the two of you to Obama, who thought he could tell me what the important issues were.
KD5's comment was the usual nonsense, blaming social conservatives for the fall of the Republican party. That is not a side issue or a distraction. If people keep blaming social conservatives, the Republicans will keep running moderates like Bush and McCain. Or worse.
Yes, I am getting tired of people who ignore the overwhelming lack of popular support for homosexual marriage in state-wide referenda, and think somehow the Republican party is alienating supporters by taking a popular position. Hey, it's not like the conservatives started this whole gay marriage rumble in the first place. We're just trying to hold it off, and waiting for the crazies to drop the whole thing.
Well, it's your fault this (my) thread drifted.
I think I'm more concerned about what will happen when Obama can't do the loaves and fishes thing for his followers. Yea, they think they got some in the Porkulus bill, but very little is going actually trickle down to the lowest of the low and the "true believers". What happens when they see that the emporer really has no clothes...
-
Well, it's your fault this (my) thread drifted.
I think I'm more concerned about what will happen when Obama can't do the loaves and fishes thing for his followers. Yea, they think they got some in the Porkulus bill, but very little is going actually trickle down to the lowest of the low and the "true believers". What happens when they see that the emporer really has no clothes...
The media certainly expects loaves and fishes with the porkulus bill. The local DC anchor was beaming talking about how the lefthanded President was signing the bill blah blah blah.....not a single hard hitting question or commentary about it, just some blather about how many presidents were lefties....stimulus stimulus savior saving the economy.....blah blah.....oh, a kitten in a tree!
-
The media certainly expects loaves and fishes with the porkulus bill. The local DC anchor was beaming talking about how the lefthanded President was signing the bill blah blah blah.....not a single hard hitting question or commentary about it, just some blather about how many presidents were lefties....stimulus stimulus savior saving the economy.....blah blah.....oh, a kitten in a tree!
Yeah, and it won't happen. I think the "media" are going to turn on him as fast as you can say "no confidence." It is going to be ugly in about six to nine months.
-
Well, it's your fault this (my) thread drifted.
Since you quoted my entire last post, as if to raise the issue all over again, I'm going to assume you forgot to add a smiley. :lol:
-
Honestly, the best thing the right can do at the moment is say nothing. We almost have to treat the country as a battered spouse...
In most abusive situations, you have to wait for the battered party to come to you: if you say ANYTHING negative about their abuser, they'll leap to his defense.
The True Believers are going to be like that: they'll have to hit rock bottom before they'll believe ANYTHING bad about Obama. But once they've been "slapped around" a few times, they'll start to see the light.
Gods help the nation when they do.
-
The True Believers are going to be like that: they'll have to hit rock bottom before they'll believe ANYTHING bad about Obama. But once they've been "slapped around" a few times, they'll start to see the light.
Gods help the nation when they do.
They'll hit rock bottom? Or they'll run behind the gun owners for protection if civil disorder and crime ever get that bad, like they do after disasters when things go bump at night?
If it ever gets to that point, I intend to slam the door in their faces. I have my family and friends to worry about. They've been wanting to violate my right to self defense for decades? The "reavers" can have them.